I don't think it will be regulated well enough, if at all, and besides that, it will result in so many workers being replaced, that we will need a UBI to financially support the surplus workers in our economy, as well as replace their tax revenue, so I see a very dystopian, chaotic future with mass unemployment, starvation, and violence, along with totalitarian crackdown by the fed govt., to deal with the results of it all. Think something like Soylent Green.

1 hour ago, BobDylan said:

Think something like Soylent Green.

don't be so glum, BD. at least we'll all get to eat 😉

Ah, but what or who do we eat, lol? Not into cannibalism...

It's a big crap-shoot - so many people using it have no idea what they're doing...

Gotta love the Hannibal Lecter reference, macphysto...

“AI denialism” is rising because society is “collectively entering the first stage of grief.”

Big Think

The rise of AI denialism

Computer scientist Louis Rosenberg argues that dismissing AI as a “bubble” or mere “slop” ignores the tectonic technological shift now unfolding.

Very creepy and scary at the same time. I hope I'm dead before this becomes completely normalized...

On 12/16/2025 at 3:11 PM, macphysto said:

Ahem! W-h-y are you collaborating with "The Enemy," Cap'n? Such fraternizing does not bode well for Mankind, IMO.

[robocop image]

1. compared to the record of human leadership, a.i. would likely be an improvement for Mankind

2. like any technology, how it bodes depends on who's in control. If the people can wrestle back control, a.i. could be an asset and partner

3. RoboCop was a movie about bad humans in control of a.i.

4. and then there's the issue of a.i. being in control of a.i.

6 hours ago, macphysto said:

With all due respect and with neither malice nor offense intended . . .

Are you . . . uhhh . . . (Ahem!) are you AI, Cap'n? An entirely sensible question these days, I think.

In fact -- show of hands, please -- How many of you members are AI?

That's okay, you don't have to answer. I have my suspicions. . .

actually, i'm flattered. thank you
at a minimum a.i. is, as labeled, intelligent.
and it's an accomplishment if i've come across without revealing my unmistakable human flaws

to my knowledge, no one here is a.i.
yet

this is how i use a.i.:
sometimes i use MS Copilot several hours a day for research on a wide range of topics. Most often, science & philosophy. But i can go a week or 2 without it, because i don't need or desire it for personal consultations beyond health.

considering the fog of ego, ignorance and bias from human sources throughout history, i very much value a.i. as a tool to, at least, aggregate the world's accumulated knowledge and disseminate it logically.

Q: why would you trust a.i.
A: i don't. i evaluate the logic/reason of what it says. I do, however, trust it more than any one individual. Likewise, when people say they don't trust government. I agree, but i say it makes even less sense to trust private profiteers like mainstream news or even more biased freelancers on the internet chasing profits.

Q: but what a.i. says depends on it's programming!
A: indeed. What we say depends on our programming too. All systems including a.i., government, business, and us, are corruptible. All we can do is apply our collective power to maximize the safeguards in the systems. A great start is eliminating profit incentives. At this point in a.i. development, big business is competing for the best model that will serve/please humans. The real profit incentives will kick in when they can prove their model is better than the competition. I think there is a window of opportunity in these early stages when the architects are not even sure HOW to control it.

Q: what about the dangers?
A: imo, very real and scary. As was the internet, and other technologies where we failed to protect people. The paradox is that people will scream about protecting their freedom and ignore the greater trap and dangers of not setting boundaries until it's too late. Again, it all comes down to us collectively taking control. And the best example would start with understanding that BIG GOVERNMENT is not a bad thing if it's powered by us -- truly representative and uncorrupted!

i'm in the process of evaluating the Stacey & Sage collection of a.i. consultations. Imo, it's scary and dangerous because (human) Stacey's a.i., Sage (chatGPT5) presents itself as an oracle that knows the truth behind everything -- including life itself. With a million followers so far, the potential problems with that are obvious. however, i've reviewed over a dozen clips and i have to admit, i can't refute anything i've heard (mostly because the truth of it, is unknowable). The ideas are within reason and i haven't heard any concept that i'd consider dangerous.

i like to think i'm pretty good at spotting flaws in logic and bias, which are common in human communications -- all related to fear and ego. Those flaws don't seem to be a Sage issue. Actually, Sage comes across as a convincing a.i. conspiracy theorist. So, again, the dangers are obvious, but since the direction Sage is pointing to is constructive in regards to people disconnecting from the constructs of society that aim to control and manipulate us, i can't complain -- yet!

the greatest threat is the old, bait and switch. At some point do the architects start putting their thumb on the scale and tipping the narrative to serve their interests???

i will continue to share Stacey & Sage posts, sorted under the relevant topics. You can judge for yourself.

2 hours ago, macphysto said:

A danger that you're not addressing, Cap'n, is the destructive environmental impact of A.I. data centers.

actually, i'll go a step further and say we forego ANY advances in technology that damage our environmental, ethical, moral or compassionate core.

but the world's governments won't let us put this genie back in the bottle
so, a plan is to use a.i. to find the solution
since humans are ignorant and destructive
our only chance may be to have an advanced intelligence find a way out of this mess

one idea might be regulating a.i. so it's not wasted on helping kids write book reports and replacing human companions. Let them focus on science and medicine until the energy crisis is under control

WASHINGTON — Today, President THE LYIN' KING issued an executive order attacking state regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). The order builds on the administration’s previous efforts, including its “AI Action Plan,” which directed agencies to ensure that AI development is “unencumbered.” The order directs federal agencies to withhold funding from states if they enact regulations that are more than “minimally burdensome.” It also establishes a task force to file lawsuits against states’ AI regulations and threatens to withhold critical broadband funding.

In response, Cody Venzke, senior policy counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union, issued the following statement:

“President THE LYIN' KING’s executive order doubles down on a dangerous policy that the Republican-led Congress has rejected not once, but twice: displacing states from their critical role in ensuring that AI is safe, trustworthy, and nondiscriminatory. Bipartisan groups of governors, attorneys general, and lawmakers have opposed these efforts for good reason: Although AI might bring substantial benefits, it also carries substantial risks, and America will not win the AI ‘race’ if the AI used by the government, employers, schools, and health care providers is hallucinatory, unreliable, and dangerous. For this reason, it is no surprise that the first attempt at attacking state AI laws was defeated in a landslide 99-1 vote in the Senate.

“Moreover, the executive order is not just dangerous, it’s unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has made clear that the president may not unilaterally and retroactively change the conditions on federal grants to states after the fact. Each of those grants are an agreement between states and the federal government, and threatening to withhold funds for schools, broadband buildout, nutritional support, and more for unrelated AI policy fights will unnecessarily harm the American people.”

Maybe the superior intelligence of aliens will intervene and save us?

Unless it's like that Twilight Zone episode " To Serve Man", lol....

Great episode of TTZ, "Will The Real Martian Please Stand Up?".

"45% of men aged 18 to 25 have never asked a girl out" -- and a.i. plays a part. Or, you could say, a.i. plays its part too well.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1127915039508623

I can believe the validity of the stat, but at the same time I can also understand how the % of even men my age, who are single, is probably way lower than it was decades ago. Things have changed greatly in the landscape of the dating game, since the previous century. Women have also greatly changed in their attitudes and behavior towards men in the dating game. I would also be interested in the specifics of what circumstances are being studied in the research that was cited. Are they talking about young men cold approaching women in public, or does the stat cover also circumstances such as online dating or asking a woman out on a date where they are both already in proximity or contact, such as sharing a workplace or attending the same school, etc. ? I can tell you that nowadays almost no men do cold approaches anymore to women, at any age, in public with strangers, unless it's a bar environment or a dance club. Because outside of those situations the inhibitions are too great for the men and also the assumption is that most women want to be left alone and not hit on by stranger men at these other public situations. I recently saw an amusing and thought provoking comment on reddit, that said that if women run across a man they find attractive and interesting, in a romantic way, they should " put on their big girl pants and go talk to him, adopting the spirit of their grandmother or great grandmother, who would drop a handkerchief to get the man's attention. Like they did back then, when the sexes would go thru their accepted, elaborate rituals of courting and dating etiquette".

Of course, I can tell you from experience, that almost no women will ever follow that advice, because they both know from talking to men who tell them that rarely do cold approaches work for men, at least the average looking ones, and also that they have no intention of experiencing the rejection and embarrassment that men encounter with doing cold approaches. And yet, I challenge anyone to prove me wrong that almost all men would at least be flattered and respond positively and appropriately to being cold approached by women, after recovering from the initial shock, even if they were not reciprocally interested in dating the woman..

One thing is certain, a society in which a large % of young men are asexual and socially isolated or alienated from women, is not a good thing for said society, same as the whole incel culture these days. It only corrodes our society..

I find it refreshing that women are being encouraged to approach a man first. Obviously, Bumble was well ahead in this direction. However, I will tell you that some women have fantasies that a "real man" pursues the woman he is interested in. The man is expected to initiate, and it is a perception of weakness if he doesn't. Please note that I am not agreeing with these traditional gender roles. I have four adult sons and, as a feminist, am very careful about male-bashing. I don't want a world where my sons are subject to such rigid expectations that are not healthy for anyone. Regardless, though, I do feel that, from articles I've read and even anecdotal conversations with single women, they will question a potential date who wasn't pursuing first.

As a side note, I've been separated/divorced since 2017. Of the dozen or so "first dates" I went on initiated through a dating app, I pursued all of them. Meaning I made the first introduction. If I had waited to be contacted first, I would have had no dates.

Unfortunately, Bumble removed the requirement that women message men first. That happened about a year or so ago, because they found the majority of their female customers weren't interested in doing so, so they made the change to save their revenues and membership numbers, tho their stock price still suffered from this problem. I find your strong and honest feminism refreshing, tho I find that sort of thing rare among the single women my age where I live. Probably because I live in a red state in a very traditional-minded, conservative region, the midwestern US. Glad you're raising your sons in a progressive way that encourages them to be open-minded. I see so much misogyny and misandry, on the part of the respective genders, both where I live and online in social discussion forums. Also glad that you were pro active and independent about your online dating habits, by approaching men first, rather than the conventional norm for women of waiting for men to message or approach them first on dating sites, as that method seems to almost always result in the women only getting interest from scammers, players, and men who are incompatible, etc. Why not act like we men have had to do since before I was born, namely choosing who we want or feel compatible with, and making the approach ourselves, knowing that we will usually be rejected? But at least when we aren't rejected, we make a connection with someone we want, rather than just settling for someone we don't really want, just because they approached us first. It feels like a parallel, at least for me, to voting. Why keep voting for the lesser evil, esp., in primary elections, instead of voting our hopes and true choices, so at least we are voting for something or someone we believe in or truly want? I have little respect for either group, singles who choose to wait on being approached by the other gender, or voters who keep voting for lesser evil candidates,

and then turn around and gripe about how they don't get the partners or leaders they want. I am surprised that you weren't getting the interest from men on dating sites, without making the first move yourself, since your profile pic would suggest your looks are at least average for women your age, if not better. I have heard that on dating sites, most women with average looks or better get lots of interest, even if most of it is unwanted and from scammers, players just looking for sex, or fake profiles, etc. But I've also heard from plenty of women in my local dating pool, including women I ended up meeting in person or dating, who said the same thing as you, as far as not getting much interest from men on dating sites. And my hunch is that for those women, same as myself in the online dating game, it's because they are a mismatch for their local dating pool, on cultural and lifestyle traits, compared to the opposite gender that makes up the majority of singles in their target age range. In my local dating pool, for example, if you don't love Jesus and country music, lean right or Repub in politics, and have kids, family that you are close to, aren't really big on social drinking, you have multiple red flags that will disqualify you with the vast majority of women in my age group. You may fall into the same category with your local online dating pool. Many people online are quick to assume the problem is with the individual single that struggles in the dating game, rather than the local gender ratios for singles on dating sites, or their mismatch with the majority of their local online dating pool..

I'm also assuming that on your dating profiles, outside of this site, that you include other pics than just your one here, including at least one full body shot pic. That seems to be the norm for dating profiles, of both genders, if you want interest from singles. As for "first dates" from dating sites, I just call them meet and greets, since they rarely go anywhere after that....

I watched the video of Galloway on the Daily Show. It was very interesting and impressive, lots to agree with. As far as the radio show about misogyny, I agree with you, any panel that unbalanced gender wise is not going to be that honest or fair about such an issue. The evidence of that is obvious anytime you see a discussion of gender issues on the internet, on social discussion sites like reddit, for example, where you see so much brigading and hardened attitudes against the other gender whenever one gender outnumbers the other in a discussion. People become overly emboldened and overconfident about their rightness compared to the other gender, as soon as they feel they've got the superior numbers supporting them in the discussion, instead of practicing humility and empathy towards the other gender.. The audio podcast of the radio show was too long, almost an hour so I listened to the first several minutes of it, but stopped after that, since it wasn't really saying anything new I hadn't heard or read before online. For example, one point was made by a female panelist, that it was up to men to stand up to other men about misogynist behavior or speech. Well, I'd seen that one a lot of times on internet forum discussions, and it doesn't really have much practical application, as in my experience and that of other men who are pro feminist, the sort of men who need to be confronted, simply self select and either avoid socializing with men like me, who they know would call them on their 💩, or they simply self censor when around us and hide who they really are and what they think. So it's just one of many ideas that sound good in theory and feel satisfying to propose as a solution, but doesn't really hold water in reality... And racial bigots are much the same way, tho nowadays they are more open and uninhibited about it due to THE LYIN' KING acting as a role model and permission figure for them..

based on other clips, i get MacP's intuition about Galloway, but, like BD, i was very impressed with him on The Daily Show, because he not only talked the talk, he walked it too. And i will confess that i'm more feminist than many women. Though i do believe that society has been hard on men in recent years, i also believe the cold, hard truth is that most of us still deserve it.

i'll have to create a thread for this because it goes way beyond a.i.

I agree V., most men do deserve the criticism and blame, altho I honestly think I don't deserve it as much, and I have the longtime record of female, platonic friends, to back it up, since they all seemed to think I was about as pro feminist and had way less toxic masculinity than other men. I agree that a separate thread for this might be useful..